9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (7) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -residence of one Tej Vir Singh, located at Gali No. 3, R-Block, Vikas Nagar (2) worth Rs. 46,00,065/- from a godown located at 496, Parmanand Colony and (3) worth Rs. 57,53,900/- from a godown situated at 18, Yograj Colony, Delhi i.e. in all totalling to Rs. 1,42,69,165/-. The respondent and one Dhiraj Singh in their statements alleged to have been made voluntarily under Section 108 of the Act admitted the aforesaid recovery and seizure and some facts of their concern with the seized smuggled goods. Inderjeet Singh, Intezar Ahmed, Joginder Singh and some others in their alleged voluntary statements made under Section 108 of the Act had also named the respondent and said Dhiraj Singh to be concerned with the said seized smuggled goods. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Counsels for the parties. 6.Learned Counsel for the petitioner has supported the averments made in this petition and has referred to the relevant material available on record; whereas learned Counsel for the respondent has refuted these allegations of impropriety and supported the validity and legality of the impugned order. He has inter alia urged that the Counsel of the respondent (Shri Gurbux Singh) was the Counsel who was to argue the matter before the learned A.S.J.; the date for hearing the bail application was adjourned to 16-6-1998 in his absence on 9-6-1998 and when he came to know about it he immediately asked his Junior Counsel for preponing the date as he had to go to Jammu on 15-6-1998 for which he had a confirmed sea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bearings apparently smuggled worth Rs. 1,42,69,165/- were recovered from three places; statements of respondent and some other persons were recorded under Section 108 of the Act showing involvement of the respondent. The learned A.C.M.M. vide his order dated 26-5-1998 has rejected the bail application for the reasons given by him as under : "I have heard arguments and perused the record. It is submitted by learned Defence Counsel that the ball bearings are not notified goods and, therefore, are not covered under the restrictions of provisions of Section 123 of the Customs Act. It is also submitted that the applicant Attarpal has already retracted his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, which was obtained from him under duress ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not covered under the restriction of provisions of Section 123 of the Customs Act. The petitioner has also attached the copy of the order of the learned ACMM, wherein it was also observed that the ball bearings are not the notified goods under Section 123 of the Customs Act. In the said order it has also been recorded that the petitioner was concerned with the smuggled ball bearings worth Rs. 39,15,200/-. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 2-5-1998. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the petitioner is in Judicial Custody since 2-5-1998 and also because the ball bearings are not the notified goods under the restrictions provided under Section 123 of the Customs Act, the petitioner is admitted to bail on his fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner and also that earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected I do not think it a fit case to grant bail. The application is rejected. The Judicial file be sent back." 14.Apparently same standard has not been applied in two cases involving similar goods and rather the case of Amarjeet Singh where the bail was declined was on a better footing inasmuch as, (1) he was in custody since 30-3-1998 as against the custody of the present respondent being since 2-5-1998; (2) the value of smuggled goods in that case was only Rs. 33,62,000/- as against the value in the present case being Rs. 1,42,69,165/- or as noticed in the order of Rs. 39,15,200/-; (3) investigation was completed and complaint for prosecution had already bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent. Will it be proper and in the interest of justice to do so at this stage? 19.The petitioner remained in custody from 2-5-1998 to 11-6-1998, by now the investigation is complete and perhaps a complaint for his prosecution has already been filed in the Court. 20.Grant of bail is discretionary though discretion is to be exercised on sound judicial principles and not arbitrarily and capriciously and the High Court would be justified in interfering in revision if the discretion was exercised capriciously or arbitrarily. However, there cannot be uniformity in the matter of exercise of discretion in such matters. The respondent has produced a copy of an order dated 30-4-1997 passed by this Court in Crl. M.(M) No. 1206/97 Sanjeev Aror ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
